‘It’s not working’: Boulder Police Oversight Panel questions limits on its role

Boulder’s Police Oversight Panel is questioning whether it can fulfill its mission of reviewing complaints of officer misconduct following a series of actions and interpretations from the City Attorney’s Office that panel members say restrict their authority.

In recent months, the city has narrowed which cases the panel can review, denied its request to hire independent legal counsel, and told members they cannot meet privately to discuss those disputes. Panel members said this sequence of events has left them feeling increasingly constrained.

“It’s been very challenging because what we see is this trend of reducing the panel’s ability to fulfill the role,” panel co-chair Maria Soledad-Diaz said. “So we are in this very difficult, difficult spot.” 

The panel was created in 2020 to provide independent civilian oversight after an officer pulled his gun on a Black student picking up trash outside his home. The 11-member body reviews internal investigations into complaints of officer misconduct and makes recommendations to the police chief on discipline. 

But panel members said the latest moves threaten their ability to operate independently, echoing tensions that have shadowed the panel since it was first seated in 2021. Those tensions include the contentious removal of a panelist by the Boulder City Council following allegations that she was a “cop hater” and therefore too biased to serve on the panel. 

The latest conflict centers on a decision by city officials to administratively close certain misconduct cases without the panel’s review, after they have been documented and classified by the police monitor. Not all complaints receive a full investigation. One case that was closed under this new policy involved allegations of racial profiling during a traffic stop. 

Later, when the panel voted to seek outside legal advice on the new policy, Deputy City Attorney Chris Reynolds said the City Attorney’s Office denied the request, directing panel members to a confidential legal memo for further explanation. Members said they wanted to go into executive session to discuss the legal matter, but Reynolds told them they are not allowed to meet in private. 

The City Attorney’s Office declined to comment on its decision to deny the panel independent legal counsel. Sarah Huntley, a spokesperson for the City of Boulder, referred to language in city code that states the city may retain outside counsel for the panel “in the event the city attorney determines that the City Attorney’s Office does not have adequate expertise to handle any given matter, does not have adequate personnel to advise on a matter, or has an actual conflict of interest.”

Since it was first seated in 2021, the panel has faced recurring challenges. Early on, it struggled to keep seats filled because of workload and other issues. In 2022, a founding member resigned in protest after city officials advised her not to release information publicly about a high-profile misconduct case. Tensions escalated in 2023 when the city council voted to remove panel member Lisa Sweeney-Miran following complaints from residents who said she was biased against police. A federal lawsuit challenging that removal is pending. The panel later paused case reviews while working with a city-hired consultant to rewrite the ordinance governing the panel. 

The latest dispute has not led the panel to pause case reviews, but it has consumed time during recent meetings and prompted calls for the city to once again review the ordinance that sets out the panel’s powers and responsibilities.

“We are not going to resolve this impasse. It’s a flaw in the way the ordinances were written or the way the whole system is working,” panel member Bwembya Chikolwa said during a December 2025 meeting. “So it just needs to be revisited. It’s not working.”

The panel was created in 2020 after an officer pulled his gun on Zayd Atkinson, a Black Naropa University student. Atkinson reached a settlement with the city in a civil case and the officer resigned. The city council’s original intent in creating the panel was to ensure “historically excluded communities have a voice in oversight,” as stated in city code.

But Soledad-Diaz believes the new policy allowing the police department and police monitor to close cases without the panel’s review means the panel will miss instances of discrimination it was set up to spot. 

That policy has prevented the panel from reviewing at least one discrimination complaint involving an alleged racially biased traffic stop, despite members voting to take up the case. When panel members learned of the change in October 2025, co-chair Lizzie Friend said the change was “concerning.” Police Monitor Sherry Daun said, “I absolutely share that concern” and told panel members she was scheduled to speak to city officials about it. 

‘A missed opportunity‘

Separately, the panel last year reviewed a case that illustrates the tensions involved in discrimination complaints. 

A Spanish-speaking woman complained that officers discriminated against her during an incident in which a medical crew was treating her husband in the back of an ambulance, according to investigation records. Medical staff told officers the woman was interfering with their treatment. The officers grabbed her, she attempted to hit them, and the officers said she could be arrested, according to investigation records. 

The panel exonerated the officers on use-of-force allegations but sustained allegations of bias by two officers, finding their behavior was “culturally inappropriate” and “heavy-handed.” Members said one officer used informal pronouns when addressing the complainant in Spanish instead of more “respectful, professional language.” They also said it was “disrespectful” when officers asked the complainant’s daughter whether her mother had been drinking. 

The police department then hired 21st Century Policing Solutions, a Chicago-based firm, to conduct an additional review of the case. One of the firm’s reviewers was a retired police chief and the other worked for a coalition of police unions, according to the organization’s website. They determined the officers “acted within professional and legal standards.”

Police Chief Steve Redfearn ultimately determined the discrimination allegations were unfounded, siding with the outside reviewers as well as the police department. Both the department’s Professional Standards Unit and the police monitor had determined the discrimination allegations were unfounded and the case should be closed, according to investigation records.

Dionne Waugh, a spokeswoman for the Boulder Police Department, said the department sought input from the firm “to ensure absolutely nothing was missed in the review of this case.” Following the review, she said “no further corrective action was recommended.” The review cost $8,000.

Under the recent policy change, such cases will not be reviewed by the panel. 

Soledad-Diaz said the case involved the type of discrimination allegations the panel was created to examine. She said she would have preferred that panel members spoke with the police chief before the city hired outside reviewers. 

“We would have learned a lot from each other,” she said. “I think it was a missed opportunity.” 

The panel has started its five-year review, an evaluation established by city ordinance and intended to make adjustments to the city’s police oversight system to “improve its continued performance.”

Co-Chair Lizzie Friend told panel members in December that City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde has encouraged everyone on the panel to schedule individual meetings with her to share feedback and discuss their experiences.

In a statement responding to the panel’s concerns, Rivera-Vandermyde said the City Attorney’s Office provides legal advice to the entire city and that there is no conflict in also providing legal advice to the Police Oversight Panel. She said the recent policy change for case reviews was about aligning the panel’s work with city code and “not about removing any authority from the Panel.”

“We do not believe this impacts the Panel’s ability to fulfill their oversight role as it comports to the ordinance exactly,” Rivera-Vandermyde said. She said the panel will still receive summaries of closed investigations and that the change preserves the “integrity of the ordinance’s intent by ensuring the Panel focuses on the review of all serious or critical complaints that merit a full investigation.” 

Rivera-Vandermyde said she hopes the five-year review will address what’s working well and what isn’t, along with concerns about confusion, tensions and mistrust.

“I’m hopeful we will emerge with better role clarity for all those involved in the oversight process along with identification of any suggestions for process improvements that could better support those involved,” she said.